Skip to main content

tv   Occupied Cities During the American Revolution  CSPAN  November 8, 2019 9:05pm-10:54pm EST

9:05 pm
history tv, history and talk about occupied life in cities during the american revolution, life with the soldiers, women, and family. the museum of the american revolution, military museum and library, and richards's even has foundation cohost this event, as part of a three day international conference. >> the best part of my job is taking the incredible work of our team and then doing my worst to it for six months, so that is my plan with revolution for the next couple months. we managed to run all sort of
9:06 pm
special programs here, was anyone here for occupy philadelphia in the opening weekend we just went through? so some of you have just experienced your own british occupation, or perhaps liberation and the perspective of many people, this is something, it is our third year in a row doing what we call a flagship living history event, we placed about 70 costume interpreters out on the street of old city philadelphia, and imagine what life was like under british rule. one of the big agendas of this event is to present the fall of 1777 in a complicated way. to show that for many of the people who remain in the city that winter, this was an occupation, but maybe it was a liberation from many in their perspective. they read about in the period being liberated from the tyrannical usurpation of an arbitrary congress, which is maybe something we could all aspire to. (laughs) >> so we do this with living history program in part because
9:07 pm
people come to museums to learn in all different ways, to encounter the real things of history, to have a human experience and connect with it, and one way that we bring it to life is with living history programming, with first person programming like some of you might have witnessed in a new theatrical programmer richard st. george stormed into the room, guns blazing in the spring of perhaps 1798, at the end of his life but maybe he doesn't know that yet. we also do these larger living history events and i have to say it really is a pleasure to introduce the set of speakers because i have benefited enormously from a strain of recent sala mothership that reexamines what life was like in occupied cities like new york and charleston, boston and philadelphia and as many of you may know the last concentrated work on these subjects is perhaps 40 years old, the most recent work on the philadelphia occupation, john w. jackson book, is almost half a century old and it reads quite well but
9:08 pm
that is an enormous gap in historical scholarship, so folks like learn to fall and erin sullivan, kim not, doing exciting recent young historical work about how complicated life was in the midst of the revolutionary war. for those people that they studied, as often as those people might have thought about military occupation and ideology in the big picture of the war, they were almost as often occupied by everyday concerns like lost cows and lost pocketbooks, by blanket seizures from the army, and then the british army that you can read one of the diary of elizabeth. the specificities of life made it more complicated by new populations of soldiers. so here is philadelphia as you were here for example, there had never been a substantial military presence but in the fall of 1777, 10,000 people
9:09 pm
flee the city and suddenly thousands of british soldiers, loyalist, civilians, repopulate the city and transform what it was like for perhaps nine months. i think, it is a great opportunity to introduce these two scholars and to give their work some great attention, they are really looking forward to taking your questions about the complexities of their subject, and i want to just take a few minutes to introduce both of them. doctor erin sullivan earned his ph.d. at temple university eerie right here in philadelphia, he work with some of you in this room and others. he recently published an absolutely brilliant book that i tell people about all the time because i think the real genius of excellent historical writing is not just getting the facts right, or riding a short piece, but somehow constructing something that is hundreds of pages long that lulls you into a sense of security because you think it is about one thing and then it sneaks up behind you like the british in some of the battles that we have been talking about and surprises you,
9:10 pm
so as i read errands work, i was thinking there was a pretty pro british work, he's been a lot of time convincing me they were good guides, and this is how it would look for some people, and very subtly, about halfway through the book, the british arrived in philadelphia, they go from being this kind of distant, nuisance, kind of ideological, envious party for the subject and philadelphia to suddenly being very present in their lives in the second half of the book proves to you that the british warrant that desirable of a governing force either, and by the time you have traveled with him through nine months of british occupation you realize that the obvious course was not patriotism or loyalty, the obvious course was disaffection which is the title of his book, the disaffected. the most obvious situation to be in was a noncommittal middle ground, in which most people avoided or flip-flopped or tried to avoid
9:11 pm
taking stakes with either party. i think erin's work, just an enormous amount of humanizing the british occupation presenting it as problematic as it would be in the period and shows us that by the time the british left in june, people were not very excited about it but they weren't very disappointed about it either, and that helps us think about the rest of the revolutionary war and its legacy with philadelphia and beyond, in really new ways. our second speaker, doctor lauren duval, now at the university of oklahoma and her ph.d. at american university of washington d.c., and i first encountered lauren's work in the form it took when she was a resident for a variety of programs here in philadelphia and beyond and i'm really excited to see her eventual book project because as i was telling them earlier, i am using it as kind of boot like conference papers for a while and sharing around this third generation media, and i think it is really going to explode our understanding of life in
9:12 pm
these cities, especially because it focuses on gender and domestic space, so many of you are familiar with some of the figures in philadelphia, the occupation like elizabeth drink, or a quaker who lived maybe only three blocks from here, who spent the winter as the newly independent head of her household because her husband henry has been exiled to the last place you would always want to be exiled, when chester, virginia. lot of great bed-and-breakfast there but not many in 1777, when you read the work and then lawrence there's an incredible scrutiny of that work, it makes to reconsider what it meant to be in a city of woman that was occupied by british army that not only included male soldiers but also german and british and american camp followers and their children and how that aspect of this life in this period really mattered. so, i should also note that doctor do false work recently won an exciting prize, has an award in the william
9:13 pm
erie quarterly, and it's so well deserved this recognition for this exciting train of scholarship. with that, i will let you know that it will be doctor aaron sullivan first and then doctor lauren duval, they will both take questions after each of their programs and i would ask you to join me in welcoming aaron sullivan. >> (applause) >> thank you. thank you to the museum, for putting on this well wonderful event but i'm grateful every year when the occupy philadelphia weekend rolls around, i care about that event very much. i'm glad the people of the museum care about it too. i feel obligated to begin this talk today with a warning of sorts. you should know, that at one point over the next 45 minutes i will briefly be exposing you to images of donald trump and
9:14 pm
hillary clinton, i will also at one point, not so much advocate for, but suggest that you consider an act against the united states. and all of this will somehow tied back to the american revolution into the british occupation in philadelphia, because that is really what i like to talk about, those nine months in 1777, and 1778 when the british occupied the city, and made it their headquarters in america. now of course, as a historian, i use that moment to take simple things and make them complicated. because real life is complicated, this is the real past and it's complicated, that's what historians do, we complicate things. we like to tell stories. so let me tell you a somewhat complicated story that begins on the eve of the british occupation of philadelphia. tyler gave us some spoilers here but i am going to press ahead anyway. we have elizabeth
9:15 pm
and henry drinker, who many of you are familiar, with a revolutionary couple in philadelphia they didn't live far from here. they have a beautiful two story home, they can see the river. elizabeth likes to say that she had room enough in the city. they had such an elegant room of backyard a stable in a flowering trees every summer. covering the area and red and white blossoms. they were quote quaker's. which is why we have silhouettes rather than actual portraits. was seen as vain, silhouettes or seen is okay. and like many craters they were pacifist. so when the war broke out they wanted to avoid being involved in any way. and the goal was that whatever side eventually won they would continue on with their family, their, fate their business,
9:16 pm
just as they had before. empire or independents. they did not think it would make that big of a difference. they were going to find that being an involved is more difficult than they. thought on december 2nd, 1777, henry drinker is at work in his parlor. he is working from home that day because he is feeling kind of ill. but also because his youngest son and names it. who he refers to as little henry. he has eight years old and is second away that involves violent meeting and worms and things you do not want to know about. deathly ill. henry is at home on december 2nd when he was arrested as an enemy of the state. three men from the government, the state government not to be confused with the colonial government, arrive and arrest henry for, in their words, having evidence against the cause of america. henry and elizabeth will object
9:17 pm
and say that they have done no such thing. and to, even if they have it is not a crime according to pennsylvania's's brand new state constitution which promises that the people have a right to freedom of speech and of writing, and publishing their thoughts. their objections will go unheeded, henry will be arrested. he will never be charged with a crime, he will never have a hearing before a judge or a court. at one point to the pennsylvania supreme court said on his behalf that the government was must early summer charge him for a crime, not only will the government refused to follow this order they will then pass a law saying that in the case like hand me drink or there will henceforth be immune from judicial interference. they will make that law retroactive. shortly after his arrest, henry and about 20 others, mostly
9:18 pm
kick quaker's and pacifists. we'll be exiled to virginia. two of them will die there before they can come home. there are families and children including elizabeth and little henry will be left to fend for themselves in philadelphia and even as the british invade and occupy the city. the story goes on, what happens to elizabeth and the city isn't necessarily fascinating. along the way of trying to get henry back she makes a very good impression on george washington. you should know that little henry is okay. he is better. that's not important to this presentation but it didn't want you to worry. the real question we are going to talk about today, is why does this happen? why does the new independent government with the full knowledge of the continental congress see
9:19 pm
someone like henry ginger as a enemy and a threat? the short answer is of course that it it's complicated because the path is complicated. but we can begin to consider it by asking, what do we do with henry drinker in the context of the revolution? how do we define, him how do we categorize him? what categories exist? under simplest homes we can say this is a conflict in which america tries to be independent from great britain. so there are the americans and the british. and if we wanted to reenact the revolution we could divide it all. up we could go down the middle insane will be the americans will be the british. those are two sides and you can fight it out. but we know right away that that is too simple. because not all americans opposed british rules. there are those who supported the side of the empire. so some of you americans will actually be on that side. but of course not
9:20 pm
everyone in america was a british colonists to begin with. there are people here before and they served on both sides. some people on our british side will be the mohawks, and over here we have the own idea. the americans were on both sides. we should recognize that not everyone who came to america did so voluntarily or from europe. in slaved black men and women also served both sides in the war. the rhode island on one side regiment on the other. most of them moved to the british side, as the british were the first and most consistent to offer liberty. recently he read thought that everybody in revolutionary america was a man. women were on both sides. occasionally under arms or. the most famous example here. but
9:21 pm
no country survives without hundreds or thousands of women. women on both sides and if we want to be there were some french and haitian. but we can create a number of different categories, roles to play, we can put them on each side. and this is what we tend to do. both we as historians and we as americans. we encounter a new category of people from the revolution and we ask ourselves which side do we put them on. and in the past we have been very slow to look at people who did not belong on either side. people who objected to both sides, neutral, pacifist, the apathetic people like the drinkers. so i refer to them here at in my book as the disaffected. people who lacked an affection for either of the two sides. you might understand this point. are they really
9:22 pm
worth fighting about. they are definitely there, we have the drinkers most quicker is fall under the category, if you look at historical literature as a whole you will come with 20 to 40% of the population fall in this category. throughout most of the war. so they're definitely there. but if they don't pick a side if they are not committed to one side against the other, do they matter? yes. they do. i wrote a book about them. so i think they matter. and i'm pleased to say that the museum thinks they matter. you can find all sorts of things about them downstairs. they are also referred to as the people between. and explaining why they matter, why would you look at them, why would you care about them. i like to reach for an analogy from the more recent past. so i want you to think back with me to a more recent time when the fate of america was being impacted. forces in red and blue what to battle with one another to control the future of this nation. i warned
9:23 pm
you that this was going to happen. i come all the way back to the 2016 election. we all know that contemporary politics in the context of the revolution never goes badly. we have a revolution the democrat won the popular vote. we got the presidency we spent a great deal of time afterwards looking at graphs like this one. and we talked a lot about who are the people who voted on this side, into are the people who voted on that side. and especially where the people who we expected to vote this way and voted on that side. we spent much less time looking at graphs that looked like this. and that green bar in the middle that's not vote for the green party. this represents the plurality of eligible voters who did not vote for either major party candidate. in most cases they did not vote
9:24 pm
at all. they sat out the election, they were the non participants. if we look at these people i think we can get some window into the mindset of the disaffected in the revolution. it's not a perfect analogy but it is a good place to start. so let's talk about these people. here we go. we can recognize that they are the first in the reason for setting out the conflict. some of them were apathetic, they were deeply involved in cared very much. and yet they hated both options. they hated them so much they could not get behind either one. these people were not unified. there was no single third party candidate in 2016. there was no single
9:25 pm
vision of the americas future in the 17 seventies which could have brought all the disaffected together under a third option. one of the things about not being unified is that your voices are quiet. there are certain rallying cries, certain matters you can get people to rally around, give me liberty or give me death, or god save the king, or make america great again. it's very hard to get people to rally around the cry of i do not want to be involved. this is hard to sell. we can recognize that when we talked about the people we are not just talking about neutrality. as if they all way the to option and said they are exactly even. we are talking about people who are not willing to make any significant sacrifice for one side or the other. an election that sacrifices you have to get up and go vote. but the sacrifices
9:26 pm
involved in signing up for one side and the other in the 17 seventies could of course be much much higher. maybe most importantly we can recognize that in both cases. these people are pivotal to understanding the outcome of the conflict, and to understanding what it was like to experience it. you could not understand the election of 2016, why it ended the way it did without looking at the people who did not vote and why. you could not understand what it is like to experience that election without talking about the experience of the plurality of americans who did not vote. and we should not try to understand the revolution without considering the experience of people who tried not to be involved. so let me tell you about some of those people. in this case two man, both known benjamin, neither of them named franklin, you haven't heard of him, i think we have all looked at this
9:27 pm
painting a lot. after the right-hand side there, the depiction which has been noted it is almost but not entirely like actual clifton. they're doing a battle ray reaction there. so when you're down here you can go see them find it clifton. he was a chief justice of the supreme court of colonial pennsylvania arguably one of if not the most influential men. he was a friend of both george washington and john adams. he was an outspoken opponent of british taxation. from the stamp tax on he did think that british was not empowered for what it's doing to america. he was also a firm believer in order and lawful authority. and one of his last cases in the supreme court he stated, an
9:28 pm
opposition of force of arms to lawful authority of king is high treason. you cannot take up arms against the established government. by definition is treason. but also in the same case he said, when the king and his minister exceed the constitutional authority vested into them by the constitution this mandate becomes treason. it's reason if you will or won't. you find yourself stuck in the middle. what do you do? in this case he is briefly arrested and much like hundred or exiled to news the new jersey. he goes to being one of the most influential powerful man you to a man who gets us had down for the rest of the war let's talk about another benjamin. benjamin towns. i don't have his picture but i have a picture of him. this is
9:29 pm
the pennsylvania evening post. he published this three times a week every week. benjamin town believed in quantity over quality. he was a man of remarkably flexible politics. he found this in 1776 a very pro independent newspaper. this was a good call in 1776. by the end of next year all the papers that were moderate were burned down a run out of town. and christmas 1776 he published this extremely wrong poem about how great george washington is in the wonders. the british market in and occupy philadelphia and all the presses pack up in philly they don't want to be tried against reason for britain they don't want to be tried in melted down. except for benjamin town benjamin town stays behind. and experience a sudden and total
9:30 pm
change of heart, realizing that this revolution is wrong. so very wrong. and that deep inside he has always been aware of. it so he continues to print the post. now the newspaper. since everything else in the city other official proclamation from the army. all the advertisements from the businesses left in the city. everything from people who have lost goods or it had them stolen. all of this goes through the evening post. and he makes a great deal of money. christmas of 1777 comes around any publishes a very long palm. in 1778, the british leave the city and the patriots return. and the loyalist president to have come down from new york and halifax pack up and leave. not wanting to be arrested by the patriots. except for benjamin town. he realizes that he has been deceived by the king that he was right the first time. and independence is
9:31 pm
really the way to go so he maintains the publication as a fiercely pro independent newspaper. and again he is the only game in town for weeks and he makes a great deal of money. so there is no one script for this affliction you can carry so much about doing the right thing, so much about the constitutional, political, and moral issues that you cannot bring yourself to be aligned with either side. you can like benjamin town, not really care at all about the questions. enjoying one side, or the other side, or both sides. whatever serves your interests the most. so neither of these people seem terribly. perfect especially like the drinkers who tried to back away. why are they targeted? why are they arrested? to understand that we need to understand how the revolution can answer key questions about this. when i divided this upper
9:32 pm
in a reenactment we interviewed people who could not pick a side. you could legitimately ask, is that an option? can you really not pick a side in the revolutionary conflict. or is this one of those cases where not picking aside is really picking aside. like we do not need to go into a another modern political issue. but you zero modulation to think of a question where choosing not to speak it out, not to get involved, effectively put you on one side against the other. the revolutionary will answer this question the negative, you cannot be neutral in this, fight if you are not for us, you are effectively against us. and we can see them expressed this answer in a host of different ways. if we go back to before the work began we have the protests of british economic sanctions. if we look
9:33 pm
at the language they use it is very telling. they decide grab them as enemies of american liberty. this is not language level that those people who stood up and said rah-rah taxation it's against people who refused to buy the book i. so you may be buying the same tee you bought from years from the same merchant. but today that makes you an enemy of american liberty. james madison famously rates that this boycott movement is the method used amongst us to distinguish friend from foe. there is not a lot of wiggle room, there is not a lot of wiggle room in that department. you are a friend or a faux. you can see when you look at the militias. where especially in places like pennsylvania. they do not have a universal militia tradition. by 17 seventies they were clearly representing a violent
9:34 pm
resistance. and yet militias were not optional, it became mandatory. and the finds placed on those who refused to serve were intentionally meant to be burdensome, even backbreaking. on people who spent a third of their income just paying the fines for not serving in the a militia. those who did serve in the militia almost universally looked at those who did not as traders. most starkly we can see at as an attempt to control. this act requires every adult male to run out george as a king they can swear allegiance to the independent state of pennsylvania and swear that they will basically inform against anyone who is opposed to the united states. if you refused you lose the right to vote or hold office. you may
9:35 pm
not serve a jury. you may not use the courts. you may not transfer or inherent real estate and you may not bear arms. if you resist in your refusal to swear the oath you could be banished from the united states. the patriots are very clear. here they do not like to tolerate neutrality. they need you to affect their side. but again why? why not just except neutrality? that is wrapped up in the nature of what they are trying to accomplish in america. they are trying to create a new nation. what gives them the right to do that, the right to use violence in that way. and their ideology says, what gives them to right to do that is that they represent the will of the people. because the will of the people is the only legitimate source of political authority. we can hear that in the phrase no taxation without representation. but the point
9:36 pm
is not the taxation is bad. the americans are going to tax each other much more heavily than the british did. the point is that you have to have the consent of the people, through the representatives in order to do that. the patriots will say, britain does not, as not, and cannot represent the will of the americans. and by implication they will say that their governments do and can't represent them. but that is a shaky proposition. you and that's where we get to the trees and part. so join me for a moment in a hypothetical thought experiment. i want you to imagine that i decided in light of all chaos in washington today. we should be done with the united states. and instead, those of us in the room. we should form our own independent nation. conveniently i have made us a packed. so i propose, the museum of democratic republic of the american revolution.
9:37 pm
let's suppose that when i gave you this proposition. the number of you who were in support of this new nation greatly outnumbered the number of you who stood up in support of remaining with the united states instead it. we have a situation like this. and sovereignty of the people in government by the government i will declare that by the authority of the people, this museum is and ought to be free and independent. can i get a >> but now what if there was another group a group that either spoke out again store for. perhaps you thought that a museum creating a country on his third floor would not be realistic. possible you thought, give it some time and things will get better in the u.s..
9:38 pm
possible you thought that eye, a historian, would not do a better job of doing of running the country as the current government. if that is the case i'm offended. does it give you a pause. does it think that maybe independents on the people was a little bit rushed or premature? certainly it is going to slow down once france recognizes our independence. but wouldn't you, even those of you who are more resin revolutionary. wouldn't it be better if we could get these people to visibly explicitly, except the steps we have already taken towards independence. this is the position of the american revolutionary. if i ask you, do you support the american revolution and independents and you say yes. then you support the whole movement. but if you say no, or if you say, i don't
9:39 pm
really care. or if you say, please go away, i am working at an 18th century farm in this is really hard. all of that undermines the moral foundation that this war is built upon. britain is constantly accusing the patriots of forcing this revolution on the people against their and the patriots are very sensitive to that. and so from their perspective, disaffection is not just neutral. it effectively puts you on the other side. it makes you the enemy. and sense they do sincerely believe themselves to be on the side of american liberty. disaffection makes you an enemy of american liberty. this brings us back to men like the drinkers and two. persecuted and arrested not for picking the wrong side but picking no signs at all. what did the revolution do with people like this? in a perfect
9:40 pm
world you would convince them to join your side. but you cannot do that. you need to at least give resources to fight the war. because they go to war with no army, no money, they desperately need people to get involved there's going to be a conflict. you want to get the resources, and somehow you have to quiet their disagreement. or at least convince people that their voices do not really count. so what do you do? we talk about some solutions. you can pass laws, you can say, you have to participate, you have to be on our side. you don't want to join the militia? you have to join the militia. you don't want to join the boycott? movement you have to join the boycott movement. you don't want to stand up and say you support an independent state. you have to swear allegiance. it is the law. second, you can make sure that the punishment for people who defy you. more or less gives you what you want
9:41 pm
anyway. so you don't want to join the militia? but we were confiscate you're guns and take your money and use those guns and money to create other militia. you don't want to take the test act. find, we will take away your right to vote, to use the courts. your voice won't count because you don't really have a voice anymore. contemporaries refer to this as excommunication. then your voice doesn't count because you are not here anymore. doing all of this, the patriots were very careful to always leave a way back. and it is remarkable, if you look at people who are persecuted for dissenting are refusing the support of the revolution. the number of times in which brett against them would stop. the threat of violence will be taking away if
9:42 pm
they would just stand up and swear allegiance and say that they supported the movement towards independence. it did not matter if they would have a change of heart or if it was done under the race. but the point was that they added their voice to the common cause. and this proved that it really was a common cause. >> henry drinker is in this position after being repeatedly offered the opportunity to take the test act and be released. now he and most of his follows will choose not to swear allegiance to the state. it is possible that given enough time they would have found other ways to convince him. but of course pennsylvania does not have time for the british are coming the banishment is a desperate measure taken at a desperate time and this brings us to the occupation and why the occupation was important.
9:43 pm
under normal circumstances it could be very hard to find the disaffected. people who do not want to be involved, often do not want to be found. it is in their interest to keep their heads down, to take the path of least resistance they do whatever they need to do so that the british or patriots will leave them alone. let them live with their families and live their lives. so people who don't really care that much about independence, maybe you think it is a bad, idea will go along with the revolutionary flow. as long as doing so is the path of least resistance. they do not want to draw attention to themselves. so how do you tell the difference between someone who joins the militia because they believe in the cause and somebody who joined the militia because they do not want to be fined? how do you tell the difference between somebody who joins the boycott because they believe in the cause. and somebody who believes in the boycott because they don't want to be called an enemy of american liberty you look at how people behave and
9:44 pm
moments of change, and times of transition. and this is why the occupation matters because it is a time of tremendous transition. consider philadelphia, it began as the capital of a british colony in america. but a year later, it is the de facto capital of the united states of america at war with her in. a year later, it is the headquarters of the british army in america fighting a war against the united states. and a year later, it is once again for the capital of the united states. as an independent nation. with each of these transitions. the path of least resistance dramatically changes. actions that would've had you in good step of the major powers are deadly treason. the next year. and between each transition of power there are moments where neither the british or patriots can exert control over the people. time so the people are more or
9:45 pm
less free to make up their own minds without fear of persecution. those are the key moments when the british first march into the state. the power of the patriots there has not yet established their own authority, what do the people do? what does the militia do? do they rally together with the british army. do they join the regiment. or do they just drop out and go back to their homes, their, farms their families. those are the moments when you see who people are really loyal to or if they are loyal to anyone at all. so what do we find when the british invade central maine? we find that the revolution is on the verge of falling apart. let's talk about the militia. when the british first invade congress they are blocking 4000 militiamen in the capital. 4000 militiamen. and the state of pennsylvania is calling them up. now the
9:46 pm
response rate up to this point has been about 50%, about half of those they called to duty actually show up or hire a substitute. you can get by with 50%. but once the british invasion begins. that response rate drops to 15%. the lowest rate of the entire war. and those who turned out to serve will desert before the term is over. they will go back home. so rather than 4000 militiamen pennsylvania is able to deploy about 2000 militiamen in september. by mid october pennsylvania is now down to 1200 militiamen. by january, 1770, eight the numbers are about 450. on february 15th, 1778. the main force of the militia consists of 60 men separate duty. 17 miles away from the closest -- the militia
9:47 pm
are not the only people. if we look at the washington papers of valley forge. along there are accounts of hungry experienced by the continental army. you will find report after report of the power and produce and livestock flowing from the countryside. passed valley forge into the occupied city. these are provisions that the american army desperately needs. they are overwhelmingly chosen. their productions to the british rather than washington. despite of desperate efforts washington took to stop it. we are going to see the same thing if we look at the test act of this revolution. almost from the moment the british arrive, people stop taking the test act. the patriots will constantly be revising the deadline, changing it to get people to chase swear this oath. but they will not do it. so the occupation snows a
9:48 pm
pennsylvania that is rife with the disaffection. at least in 1777. this is a real problem. he needs those militiamen, he needs those supplies at valley forge. on fortunately for the united states the people who are not committed to the revolution are also not committed to the british empire. this is a case of disaffection that loyalism, so the militia melt away it falls apart but those men don't go and join the british regimen. there are trying to put together 5000 new loyalist troops to stay in the capital. they can get 1000 at this time in america. those farmers who were all eager to trade with the british army. they make it very clear that they are not here because they are loyal to the empires, they are here for money. they're all the people of pennsylvania stopping the test act they also utterly refuse to secure valley forge
9:49 pm
which helps make philadelphia overrun. washington can never get support to drive the british out of the state. the british also could not get enough support to expand their hold of pennsylvania. ultimately this occupation will and not in an epic battle. the british said it's not worth the effort anymore they're going to take their army and head home. ultimately we know, the patriots are going to win this war. america will become independent. the patriots royal middle east start writing the constitution. they are not eager to include these disaffected. voices they want to show in america the unified people consenting together to support this war for independence. for much of our history we follow this model. we assigned the oath to very is sides the consenting unified republican its enemies. the
9:50 pm
outsiders, traders, people whose voices don't really count. let me tell you about one more disaffected. this is the widow house near red main battlefield in new jersey. it was bad for the battle and it's still there, you can go visit. it was filled with quicker than passing this. joe which all is the oldest son of the family and keeps a diary from 1775 to 1779. right in the middle of the war. he makes an entry in that diary almost every single night. now i have read that whole diary and let me tell you the most remarkable thing about his diary is how incredibly boring it is. like 1775 to 1779. it's the battle of washington, the seas of,
9:51 pm
boston the declaration of independence, the occupation of pennsylvania. none of that is in his diary. instead he writes about house, allied about house. and working on the school board and when his family came to visit. and who came to meetings and who did not come to meetings. and on and on. it's unfair to call that boring. if you are trying to understand the life of a quicker farmer at the time this is a rare treasure. it really is. but if you go there looking for an account of the revolutionary war in the political debates that's around. and you will be sorely disappointed. if you look very closely, you can find pits of the war. one soldier wears actually on his property. he wrote about it. if they confiscated his staff, he wrote about it. there was one time
9:52 pm
when he was almost arrested for not joining the militia, he wrote about that. he wrote a very little bit about one revolutionary battle because it happened in his front yard. but overall, this is the diary of a man who is interested in the revolution happening around him. even when he writes about soldiers confiscated himself he almost always refers to them and soldiers. it's up to you figure to figure out of their british or continental soldiers. he does not say. you get the sense that he does not care. what he cares about as they were soldiers who took a stuff. so we have a family that is disinterested in the war. and they have an enormous battle fought on their front yard. on the fort mercer there along the delaware river. fort mercer was built on the property of james hotel. you can see the widow house appear all right. there is the force.
9:53 pm
that used to be the orchard. they chopped down the orchard they did not ask permission, they did not ask for any money. october 22nd forces will assault the house with something like 1600 casualties. they will watch everything from their house, that's our house right there. according to family tradition. joe's mother is upstairs in the houses this is happening. she is working on her spinning wheels, she can look out the window and see this battle going on. a rogue cannonball, shoots through the cable over her head reduces around in the attic and then rolls down the attic stops and stops next to her which point she presumably says us and she picks up the spin and we'll and goes to the basement a house and continue spending for the rest of the battle. interesting women. it when the battle is over. the little home becomes
9:54 pm
the space of broken bodies and blood it's a hospital taken by the patriots. while they are there they do what they can to help the wounded on both sides, nursing them as they can. years go by. we can ask, how does history, how does america remember them. joe's father chants to be remembered as a loyalist when he is remembered at all. not because of anything he did but because he refused to join the war for independence and because he never quite forgave the patriots for taking the land and cutting down his orchard. joe's mother is now known as a heroin. in 1905 the daughters of the american revolution
9:55 pm
named a chapter after her saying she established american independence. because everybody has to be on one side or the other. this is how we tend to tell the story. there are the americans and there are the british. over time, we make room for loyalists. native americans, slaves, free blacks, women soldiers, but all too long that comes down to asking which side where they on. and we sometimes overlook the people in the middle. and these people are important. these are the people who could see the war as disturbing and tragic. not as this glorious cause to be one, or this and natural rebellion crushed. it was a disaster that had to be endured. there the people who could see the revolution as and
9:56 pm
we should not lose that perspective and i hope we don't. thank you so much for listening to me. (applause) >> i think i'm allowed to take questions for a little bit. >> if you can find a microphone. >> working on it. >> since you chucked on the present day, for most of my life the most of disaffected presidential voters have been between 45 to 50%. quite frankly i would love it if those 45% or sometimes majority of them joined me. but i would also love it if they would just choose a side. one side or the other so that the rate of
9:57 pm
disaffected voters, which should be the greatest democracy in the world might be 5% or 10% instead of 40 or 45%. so given your view of disaffected voters, how do -- is it important to get those people to make a decision? and if so how do we do that? >> that's a good question. i'm extremely hesitant to dabble any farther into modern politics so let me just say, i don't think we should go about it the way the patriots often did. threatening people to vote one way or the other. but i will stop there, because the modern-day is not my field. the 2016 election is not unique. it's typical. >> i think, that was super interesting. i have a question about the disaffected in terms of native americans. so, there
9:58 pm
is a lot of talk about can't set it up. it's been thought over their ground. i'm assuming that the american revolutionary were the ones proclaiming neutrality as the enemy as you first say that and they will wage war on them regardless of which side they choose but was there any kind of the grudging acknowledgment that these tribes were sovereign and that they had the right to proclaim neutrality? was there any type of discourse about that going on? >> if there was, someone standing up saying that native american tribes had the right to be independent. i'm not familiar with. that they were in many ways forced to be involved in one side or the other exhibit downstairs actually touches on this. as you can go in here the different perspectives from different people they're saying
9:59 pm
can we be neutral or not. can we be allied with our friends? can we concerned about americans an ally with the british? so they certainly had an interesting in neutrality in not being killed. but they had an interest in boarders in most cases deciding that the british empire offer them more safety, and more access to the land that they were on that the americans took. >> thank you for the presentation. the question that i am going to pitch to you. your most available answer might be to go out and buy the buck. but it is a small detail. how on earth did benjamin town managed to dance on the head to the advertised at both camps.
10:00 pm
you >> should definitely by the book. towns is fascinating. he gets away with that to the extent that he does because first he is there when the british command and most of the printers have flood because they are afraid of being prosecuted. it turns out that the british were much slower to prosecute people at that point and the patriots. they really had to see what the threat was in the long term. and they tried very hard not to be threatening to them so he made that complete reversal of loyalty is throughout and to an extent they kind of needed them, they needed at least one printing press in the city because there were all of these royal proclamations that had to go out. so he was able to take advantage of that. the patriots of course are in a similar position where they come back to the city, had them an operating he was very helpful. he is accused of treason by the
10:01 pm
americans when they come back into the city. but he benefits from changes in the war that happened between 1777 and 78 78 most notably saratoga in the french lines. there is a different attitudes that this war is at least for this area won the british are not going to come back to philadelphia. they think they are secure now in ways that they were not before. they began a process of being more and more tolerant of neutral and disaffected after the occupation. so he is in danger of being and friday for treatment. but essentially it just drops off the map. he is not a follow-up. so he does not have a successful business career as he will it in 1780. he is not over arrested or imprisoned for what he had done. many people in philadelphia do not forget about it. >> thank you so much.
10:02 pm
all right, hello. so before i begin i just want to thank the museum of american revolution for hosting us and all the sponsors moving on this amazing conference. i want to start looking at this picture. this -- you may not recognize that
10:03 pm
because you've seen different depictions all weekend. this is 1830. it depicts the battle of german town during the revolution which took place on the out skirts of occupied philadelphia. exactly 203 years ago. it became a literal battlefield. british troops fortified themselves and american forces descended on that house in an unsuccessful attempt. clifton now operates today the marks of the battle remain memorialized within its wall. bullet holes in damage stores are parts of it. once again they defend upon clifton to reenact the battle on the ground where it was thought. in the experience of war and clifton, especially depicted in this. it is very much in line with how we distinctly think of
10:04 pm
a battlefield in the american revolution. we have soldiers standing behind in firing muskets. there is an officer on horseback. the smoky or the house, it signifies fighting, there is little evidence of physical destruction actually going on in this engraving. there are a few soldiers limping. bodies in the distance, overall it is relatively bloodless. it reinforces this narrative that depicts the revolution as not a violent military account. it's also known for putting women in the space. as if they were not threatened by war. expect allows us to speculate how we may picture the home as a battlefield during the american revolution. during the war how they have become battlefields outside of the traditional sense. and for people throughout the american
10:05 pm
colonies. looking at violence and destruction to their homes threatened their families. and this violence was something new. unlike settlers urban dwellers where on a compton to violence and warfare that were common here. but americans home became battlefields in unexpected ways during the war. this is especially true in cities under british rule. where british occupation brought that violence. it brought a profound disruption to traditional authority and unexpected ways. urban dwellers encountered british forces on the battlefield and their homes, and streets. during the american revolution the british army captured six cities during this. time boston, new york, newport rhode island, philadelphia, charleston, in savannah. with the exception of savannah the remaining five
10:06 pm
cities were the five largest port cities in colonial north america. their importance speaks to broader experience of british occupation during the revolution. urban dwellers encountered forces in their homes they experienced the violence through domestic concerns. the british occupation present a fascinating moment to examine the power dynamics of the revolutionary household. to the circumstances of war americans wielded limited power within their households. some men served in malicious, other where prisoners of war. others fled for safety before the british army took their lives to protect family property. so cities under british military rule, they are not only negotiating with new forces they are renegotiating that
10:07 pm
relationship with one another. in the context of war. so my brick product examines the british military occupation through the lens of the urban household. i look like things at family letters, military diaries, petitions, military, keepers court, records newspapers, basically anything i could get my hands on. trying to understand the inner dynamics of the household. in order to understand how daily interactions and common domestic faces we are really intertwined with the broader experience of ordering the revolution. as soon as i analyzed the household as a sight of conflict not only between soldiers and civilians but civilians themselves. the various races, genders, and some of these contacts of course it is war. but the experience of occupation really exacerbates new consequences in wartime households exacerbating
10:08 pm
struggles. it was not a positive for. it was a relocation and. laura relocation that had drastic consequences for women, their, families their households. i want to suggest that we create conceptualize the home front in the battle front. we are primarily civilians who experienced were on their door stops. in a total disruption of the household in the world they inhabited. in this previously overlooked wartime encounter had widespread and ramifications for american households. the best way to illustrate these dynamics is to look at these household. i want to share for examples with you today to teach you how household functions at sites of conflict. between a path carries to the british officer reports. enslaved women's enslave holders and charleston. and between two sets of husband
10:09 pm
and wife and philadelphia. it all concludes by considering how americans reimagine these domestic spaces in the post war years. alongside shifting culture ideas about the pilot threat household. looking at the whole these illustrate how free these power you guys. they suggest that wartime struggles help american life. >> i do occupation is disruptive throughout many routines. of soldiers, refugees, livestock, associated with the british army. not to mention they tapped into the resources of these urban areas. civilians require passes to leave the city. they are forced to adhere to curfews. and military schedules. so they are out of the streets. they are in public
10:10 pm
spaces. men were encamped throughout the city intents and barracks, conclude in stores and churches and houses and school. drunk and rowdy people were a constant presence. female citizens of all social classes took on a new in immediate danger. and yet these spaces were not safe either. inhabitants were victims of robbery and plunder. they took quarters and were susceptible to his base is being turned. i'm so occupation brought the war. which do american civilians it prevented a fundamental challenge. the basic presence that governed daily life of revolutionary america than in their household. so conflict often emerged in these instances between british officers an american civilian
10:11 pm
men when both claim that they were entitled to domestic space. this is true of those courted in the newport. home in candles and saved. tweeting insisted that he threatened to throw the boy after. work campbell had done this before. this assertion at its core reveals presumptions about racial bodies that white women could take with them. it's suggesting that he is threatening to drown a child. he revealed racial dynamics in newport. campbell insisted that tweet ease intention was much more malicious. he was attempting to enter the child. he interpreted this as a personal attack. so we begin
10:12 pm
tweedy he repeatedly demanded satisfaction but the captain candles of repeated refused to duel in silence to him and ignore the request. this incident was a power struggle between two men with an enslave child in the middle. although tweedy insisted the two men were on into meant footing. they were frustrated by their coordinating arrangements. he felt disrespected and disempowered in his own home. tweedy claims that in the wake of his brother's death campbell had shown little sensitivity, played music, and ignored him when he saw him in the entryway. campbell denied that the men were friendly. he implied he felt no obligation to the comfort him. he extended his behavior by insisting
10:13 pm
playing music and his own quarters pars in the statements gives us a sense and a glimpse of how each man interpreted claims to their space at the head of household tweedy expected captain campbell to adhere to a certain standard behaviors that aligned with the family. for this reason tweedy framing of the men's relationship is can efficient. president zantac him as a friend puts a new -- it allows tweedy to maintain an illusion of power over his household even though he is quite powerful powerless. campbell, on the other hand. was aware that he occupied tweeting his house and he was oblivious to the. law he insisted he can do as it is wish in his own quarter. it's his own private
10:14 pm
space, under his control and suffering from the rest of his family. moreover, in his refusal to acknowledge tweedy's demand campbell suggested he did not see these as social equal. only gentleman could dual each other. so because of his elevated class he is above the rest of the household. he is not subject to his domestic authority. it complicity reinforces notions that british officers in disregard american man. the court-martial will reinforce finding camels status more important. this reveals the power dynamics of this household. these actions represent not only a refuse but also in her assertion of tweedy domestic authority. his actions give him the right to threaten
10:15 pm
the boy in treat him with such authority as if he were his own servant. here is newport. as if he was his own servant. by enacting this display on tweedy target actually flipped the the situation. in this in this incident indicates in many instances british challenge to american men's authority sees it as personal slights rather than a formalized tragedy. this is a striking difference of the british army's approach they use norms as a strategy of governments and charleston uses mastery is an ability to govern their family it became contingent on the separatist
10:16 pm
crown, if man endorsed the crown's authority, they regained their status and property, if not they remained prisoners. their property was sequestered and their slave labor was put to work on plantations. patriarchal roles were in timed in charleston's rachel code it affects the fabric of the social relations and labor seem. the army denied slaveowners access to houses that were marxist of their status. inflamed women used this as a way to claim new space to transform the spaces within.
10:17 pm
in january 1782. this is a story about mary failure and to other women who are most likely formally receive a enslaved refugees in british lines. officers of their army and female slaves only. this is reveals how british -- the challenge white man's mastery within occupied charleston. the ball was held at 99 meeting street a private house. and british officers dressed the women up in capes, with the richest silk on their heads. powdered out in the most pompous getup's. the women arrive in carriages. the festivities a last until four in the morning. this is unprecedented. charleston has a large history of interracial
10:18 pm
sacks and charleston's enslaved communities often gathered in kitchen but this january 17 this boldly moved such actions in dominantly white groups were enslaved women had been previously president. but certainly not as followers, they had only been president as laborers. intuition it was reminiscent of the african rebellion tradition a carnival ask tradition the celebration buried among plantations. showed the plantation hierarchy. and so people dancing through the streets attired mass in lavish clothing accompanied by the white character you can see up there. after 1719 the tradition
10:19 pm
involved to include sectoral dancing. in which slaveowners dressed african women in european costume. this is a character tour of a fine lady. with black girls dancing on the walls of their feet and weighing their hips provocatively was how it was described. with this tradition and the timing around christmas are suggesting that the influence of this island traditions on charleston's ball aside not only a british military presence in the caribbean throughout the revolutionary war but also the charleston caribbean connection. significantly, the charleston ball reinforces the place of gendered power in the revolution. the ball often took place within civilian homes
10:20 pm
further underscores how social events subverted the spaces and white men's authority over the spaces. there are parallels between the charleston ball and this house in philadelphia during 1778 to celebrate the retirement of british how. american women in turkish clothing watch officers joust for their affection. this validated british honor in the war. putting american women at the center of this military conflict with the british and american men. similarly at charleston ball british officers performed power and challenge the authority of men through civil disappearing. from a legal standpoint california slave owners.
10:21 pm
british officers relationship with slave women undercut these rights. they were asserting their prerogative. they did so within the very homes to undermine those authority. this became a metaphor for the military conflict that revealed the virility of british officers. now three weeks after this event. writing from continental headquarters at charleston. daniel stevens a lieutenant of the charleston tributary. condemns the ball. saying are female slaves in quotes. he says this proclaims a general white american ownership of enslaved women's bodies and denounces him as british back rarity. notably, he races male slaveowners from
10:22 pm
the narrative of this event, whether because of their abstinence from this which is unlikely and charleston. perhaps conceding power. or saying many of these in quote were taken out of houses. not only an affront to female slaveowners who british officers had overlooked in preference of their female slaves. it challenges the authority of their houses holds in their inability to control the women within them. this framing also significantly overlooks inflame from its own agency in these events. the departure from the ball. white women stayed at home while slave women departed for a ball in the arms of gentlemen. it altered the racialized
10:23 pm
standards embedded in charleston home places of black labor and white socialization. in appropriating the spaces for their own entertainment. they denied white slaveowners the exclusive right to use these houses a spaces of leaders. plus framing this event is an indictment of british officers. it was enslavement somewhat challenging these white women's authority. stevens account of this reveals just how layered these contests over domestic space where. charleston homes became sites of conflict between american men and british officers. each claiming legitimate authority by receiving control. enslavement also created pieces for themselves. by socializing with british officers in charleston's elite homes. they
10:24 pm
rejected slave laborers. challenging these racial hierarchies. even so because women's actions were inexplicably linked to the british army by the military conflict. contemporaries could easily minimize the dangerous ramifications of this. imply they are about to banish. this is important insight because it exposes how domestic power during the revolutionary era was racialized engendered at its core. military rule where the british army covered every facet of life, within the domestic environment, in small, but meaningful ways, white women exert their power in the space of their home. depressingly british officers preventing their realty to do that. of these exchanges bring
10:25 pm
to sharp relief how different british officers are regarded white women's authority. again demonstrates a gendered dynamic of occupation. in relation between husbands and wife. you've heard about henry and elizabeth drinker. you can actually see downstairs the recreation of their household. the furniture that they would have had. if you haven't seen that yet you should go check it out. the experience of the drinker family. provides an example of these household dynamics and how different husbands and wives out about the home in these challenges to their authority. life in philadelphia had been difficult for the drinkers. her husband was an exile, you've heard about the challenges of running a household in wartime. on multiple occasions, british officers arrived at the door with blankets and provisions. they tried to tear down the shed it one of the families rental properties. they settled
10:26 pm
for the fence instead. this house was alarmingly in november december 1777. one of the students ran out for the officer. this ended with elizabeth and her five children locking themselves away in the parlor of the man drunkenly laying about the house, swearing, knocking on the parlor door. demanding the family let him into drinking a glass of wine. eventually, bail neighbors became substantial. when the family emerged from the parlor kelly was gone with the man. so all of this must a ban on elizabeth drinkers mind. as she put in her diary and 1777 i often feel afraid to go to bed. later that month elizabeth drinker agreed to corridor a british official in her house. this is practical despite the direction of the previous weeks he was looking for protection. reading the
10:27 pm
signs in the occupied cities and realizing that cornering was inevitable. elizabeth chose to reason. she thought it would be better to choose an officer then have one forced upon her. significantly, elizabeth drinker interviewed him four times before accepting him as a larger. in this meeting she negotiated the terms and she made clear her expectations for his behavior while he resided under her roof. in agreeing to this terms, he took up residence in the drink or household in december 1777. three men accompanied him. although they did not live in the house they were often in the kitchen awaiting his orders. they are very president they in the drink or household servants, orderlies, constantly rotated in and out of the home,
10:28 pm
carrying goods and messages back and forth to headquarters. he eventually took over to parlors and the stable as well as having access to the kitchen. but he mostly adhered to elizabeth rule. he mended his hours at her request. he prevented swearing and drinking in their home. and conducted his business elsewhere. in fact in seven to february 1778 the captain of the 42nd regiment said he dined with him at the households. elizabeth noted that they broke up in good time. people were satisfied with the evening. he said it was a showy dinner with not much drink. he also recorded notably that after their evidently he also upheld his
10:29 pm
role about gambling. and he respected the boundary of the woman who created the household. limiting the noises she abhorred. so they settled into a routine, they kept their supplies separately which was a successful arrangement. in order to avoid confusion in the kitchen, they prepared meals after the drinker family had finished there's. elizabeth exiled husband henry however was far less comfortable with this agreement. upon learning of his cornering he wrote demanding to know who is it that could be in my house how many intruders are they what part of the house do they occupy, they demand food, what else? as the occupation progressed he worried about his presence more. elizabeth took measures to calmer has been severe understanding that the
10:30 pm
arrangement was. she said she invited him. but she admitted now and then he does not behave like a gentleman. tucker's diary says other way. her frustration and struggles over his hours and disobeying her orders. as with one kelly ran away with the officer. the letters minimized the frequency of the interactions. from her diary entry it was clear they regularly shared coffee and tea possibly a daily basis. and elizabeth attended some of his social gatherings. after socializing he walked one of her friends home suggesting he became a valued acquaintance but also a bar male protector
10:31 pm
two women whose husbands had been exiled. he slowly integrated into the family life. so it was throughout this through the war women dined in socialized and drank tea, smoked pipes of what the british officers courted and their households. the special proximity of the home transformed british presence to that of a neighbor from one of the intruder. these relationships are evident in the language women use in their diaries. our officer. elizabeth drinker lack of qualms about this behavior to suggest that there was an intimacy to their relationship their social interactions suggest that they were much closer than there has been led to believe it tells us more about drinkers anxieties and
10:32 pm
his actual ability that reveals not only the lived experience about this but also gendered expectations about household and husbands and wives authority over at like henry drinker many american men worry about these than being president their household. the what leaders of the american men reveal anxiety about their woman being alone with another man. one memorable exchange considered this office space notably she did not consult her husband about this but was in his support my hair had been bad informed by his sister wanted to quash the idea. skeptical of the character he expressed concern that they in danger the house warning that they are a person who takes
10:33 pm
command of the front door in every chamber dead and night. he's willing to suggest that his wife and his young children at the mercy of an unknown could be violent strangers he tries to protect them from afar what no amount of financial strain is worth the danger of trying to document it is literally or figuratively those words became explicit. he expected sarah not to change the lay out of his office to do so would be more injury they were to be disturbed -- in a state where i could readily find any paper. these reasons among others. these papers an
10:34 pm
essence are essentially staking these claim in the household. he was insistent that his wife had touched on because it reveals that another man's presence in the house might erase his own authority. domestically from afar suggests that they found this absence disoriented. this worries expressing a concern for their wives and children. often there be a house in these men, fathers and husbands, the providers and protectors, the patriarchs. it was linked to physical and domestic space. man worried they were not able to fulfill the their duties they worried their children wouldn't forget them. the presence of office compounded these and senior guarantees. it represented in incursion of the british state into their most intimate space. >> have a gay adams perhaps
10:35 pm
best articulated this interaction in the fall of 1777 as the british army advance on philadelphia. they will not drive the enemy from their doors they deserve the slavery and's objection which awaits them. philadelphia has had to articulate a vision of martial masculinity. it rested upon the defense of their particular sight the home. this notion became increasingly pervasive in the post war years. as the idea of the private homes appeared amazed american independence. after eight long years of property confiscation. american men reclaimed their homes. they claim the household would never again face the discussion and incursion that the years presented. george washington went to mount
10:36 pm
berman. this embodied the sentiment. the message from washington to justify war. emerging cultural discourse is in the early republic linked the private public to what led to the nation. unfazed by public life the home was a repository for republican virtue. it fortified both the nation and individuals citizens against tyranny and oppression. in many ways and opposed to years, the private home became entwined with the idea of the nation itself. >> so in the eighth late 18th and 19th century. an art and literature and newspapers and correspondents and other forms of discourse. americans reinforced a vision of the american home, by posing
10:37 pm
domestic ideals backwards. this a race the potential of the war by overriding the ways in which white women and insight people negotiated, claimed, and really made domestic spaces during the conflict. instead, of post war reimagining, memorialize white woman as the vulnerable icons of domestic life. threatened by tyrannical, cruel, british soldiers. so the painting on 1811 these women during the british occupation of charleston aggrieved the british riding over home to british soldiers. this actually provided the arrows. you can see the painting is entitled. it's not directing them to burn the house. but her pose itself suggests she is actually standing on a path a style in front of her home. justin
10:38 pm
white. she looks more like a saint preparing for martyrdom then a woman preparing for. battle in such a post war visual it reinserted racial and gender hierarchies in the household. reinforced the urgent notions of domestic privacy by illustrating the vulnerability of women and fortifying it. this phenomenon is evident in south carolina patriot daniel. wallace recording his memory foreign friend. he described an incident in which south carolina patriots when it is loyalist house in the inadvertently kills her. well as encouraged his friends yet he also proposed a minor alteration. quote, he will admit some liberty to be taken with the truth. you can place it on the weak side. make her the heroine of the tail. let her death be by a tory. it was
10:39 pm
a suggestion reveals how literary portrayals allow them to reshape american conflict. to redefine the new nation as loyalist rather than patriots who is so heartless to kill his own sister to disregard the family and the rule for the patriot home invaded the patriot woman killed her own doorstep. she is being murdered. for the war fought and won no longer invading armies in the home. no longer would women be forced to porter soldiers. or watch their home burned to the ground. wallace is imagining this image in a way that novels another cultural discourse is served as a tool to reinforce ideas about the private production of the home. so with this in mind. i
10:40 pm
want to return to this image of clifton. and think about it in the new context. from 19th century depiction of the battle. it does indeed gesture to rebels of violence and destruction that many urban dwellers encounter in their household during the war. and like many other depictions of wartime homes this image the violence of war and the vulnerability of american households. it is occupied by british soldiers. protected by men obscured by smoke. horses flew the scenes. underscores its precarious. there's no visual signs of damage. a handful of soldiers approach to the door but most of the men are tucked away in the shadows. the edge of the image. encroaching darkness that threatens to overtake the
10:41 pm
engulfed. the images also surprisingly peaceful in spite of the subject. the man jim and the grandeur of the estates. house is the focal point of the image in the battle is held in a place that would otherwise be idyllic in tranquil. we know that the americans won the war they reclaimed clifton. they bring the victory back into the images of visual assertion of both the fragility of the american people and their success. it's a reimagining of a battle attempting to simultaneously portray the violence of war in tranquility of domestic space and the tension that emerged in the discourses of wartime invasion and private domesticity shaping how americans both then and now it's significance. in the early 20th century they famously
10:42 pm
declared the fundamental questions of american politics. the question of who should rule and how. it this is not only about political separation but authority. this declaration in many ways represents the idealization of american domestic space. suggesting this was separate from the violence. this is not the case, unoccupied cities, the home itself became a battleground, and for american families this is very disruptive precisely by how it established power hierarchies within the intimate space. understanding the consequences is the first home the american household as a gendered, racialized space. thank you.
10:43 pm
(applause) >> i would be happy to take some questions. >> laura and, i might, i might -- oh -- i might just exercise my prerogative. i would love if to know if you could see one vignette talk brought to life the told the story of a gendered,, racialized complicated city in the philadelphia as part of our living history program, what is the moment or avocation that you would choose? >> i think it a lot of ways. not having this opportunity to see unoccupied philadelphia exhibit and in light of this presentation. i think the drink
10:44 pm
are so to really put a lot of these in perspective. the drinkers themselves have a domestic servant in their household. who heads up marrying one of the fashion officers. so it kind of pulls together a lot of these. i think there's a question up here. >> i have a question. on the rule of use when i was reading about mother in india they are going out and they are really quite yarn. 15 or 16, that age. i was going to ask in terms of power dynamics, somewhat like inclement is a major. he has a
10:45 pm
certain amount of material wealth as well. young girls are going to have a lack of maturity and not all in financial resources. not always but in general. the power dynamics and implications of that. how are they imposed on american girlhood. with these british officers. >> yes, that's a great question, it certainly plays into this. i wish there were more documents detailing the ages of women in these occupied houses. for example sarah logan fischer has that officers in her house and she is quite young. she does talk about having dinner with him, talking about his family getting at some of these generational differences. i
10:46 pm
think one of the bigger issues i see playing out has more to do with age seems to be a lot of the social nation takes place across social class and. so we see middling and elite classes quarter-ing them assisted men living in the barracks. often we see violence happening against women it tends to be related to class. some of that is the case in philadelphia. the class determined social relationships more than age. >> last november i spoke to the american revolution roundtable and during the cohen a peep cleared a gentleman asked me if i had ever heard about the incident in charleston where white woman wouldn't dance with the british officers. so they forced the slaves to dance with
10:47 pm
them. etc. and i'm very politely said i had never heard of that. thinking, i don't know what cracked public how you got that for. but i was amazed to find that there is a factual basis for that story, but it is interesting in whatever retelling this is access to how the whole dynamic is changed. the british are being snubbed in. >> that comes from a letter. he is a patriot. that's very much his interpretation of the event of the charleston ball room. this is the british doing this even the verbs he's doing suggested it's women being acted upon. but i think when you pull back the layers of that and think about what is actually happening in the cities, we will never know for sure, whether these women were voluntary or if they were to
10:48 pm
some degree forest, or if it was just circumstances, if they just arrived in the city. we will not know that for sure. but i think what we can know about this letter is the way in which this was interpreted. and the way american man fat friend by that. >> in the back. >> lauren, thank you very much for this wonderful top. i have to confess, when i was writing my keynote for last night, i had read lauren's wonderful article in the quarterly and what struck me was the images i had before my own powerpoint was about the car lyle commission in the irish volunteers. and otis warren making a helpful cameo appearance. i guess the
10:49 pm
question i have is, on one hand the british are clearly playing a very familiar game, occupying powers speaking to unmanned their opponent. that's one of the things that is an old military strategy, but i am wondering, do you see efforts on the part of the british, particularly given that they are claims that they're actually what they're trying to do is restore civil governance that they themselves think of and paternalistic terms. do you see, efforts by the british to mitigate the effects of occupation on the integrity, if you, will of paternalistic household. you could certainly see why they would drive the other way. that is sort of the waging war. they are serious about restoring civil society. they may understand. that you
10:50 pm
would actually expect to find them trying to mitigate the effects of it as well. >> that's a great question, i think in some ways they offer, they put out loyalty oaths. if you want to come to the british ground you get back you're property, you can do anything in the city. i think that's one way we see it happening. there is also a lot of instances where british officers talk about the need to protect women and children. they frame it as american men have done a disservice to their families by putting them through this hardship if they had not wage this war women would be where they frame it as the offenders coming in to restore these areas to protect women from their husbands so it is certainly there but yes it's an interesting question at the heart of it all there was one up front.
10:51 pm
>> i very much enjoyed your book i'm wondering what was the fate of loyalist women when the british left philadelphia. >> that's a great question so there is this guy named casey tilden who did work on loyalist woman in her book just came out of your interest in that there's a lot of backlash in the city initially so there are some women whose husbands were a preeminent loyalist in the city she leaves the british and she's off to fend for herself they turned her out she is ostracized there is also an incident in the historiography when the americans are trying to celebrate the 4th of july and they end up parading and it's conflicted if it's the's
10:52 pm
parliament there is the fancy ball gowns the powdered wigs so there is the sense of a backlash against women and they are attempting to discipline it but what ends up happening as the american army invalid althia they show up they want to entertain there's just not that many women in the city. so they end up saying they're not going to socialize with these loyalists at the end they are inviting them to balls and dancing with them in watson's history he claims that they were forgot the tensions that were there. (applause)
10:53 pm

1 View

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on